Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Blog

Florida, Maryland are the latest states looking to protect property through civil asset forfeiture reform

The tsunami of state-level civil asset forfeiture reforms continues to build as the Florida and Maryland legislatures are considering bills that would take small steps toward protecting innocent people's property from government overreach. The state legislatures that have passed or are considering civil asset forfeiture reforms include Georgia, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia.

The proposed legislation in Florida and Maryland offer steps in the right direction, but these bills aren't as comprehensive as reforms that have been proposed elsewhere. In the Sunshine State, civil asset forfeiture has been used by state and local law enforcement agencies to seize property suspected of use in a crime. Florida offers more protections than most, requiring that the government prove that seized property is connected to an illicit activity, but much more can be done to protect innocent people.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) has introduced SB 1534, which would place restrictions on how proceeds from seized property can be spent. Currently, Florida law enforcement agencies can keep up to 85 percent of the proceeds from forfeitures. Brandes' proposed legislation, however, would require the seizing agency to direct 50 percent of the proceeds to "a special law enforcement trust fund" established by the local government that has jurisdiction. The funds would be designated for specific purposes, such as paying for school resource officers, crime prevention, or drug abuse prevention programs. The bill also prohibits the seizing agency from retaining forfeited property for internal use.

SB 1534, which cleared a Florida Senate subcommittee on Wednesday, may take aim at the perverse profit motive seizures through civil asset forfeiture, but it falls short by not outright banning the pernicious practice.

Maryland already takes away the profit motive by directing proceeds from forfeited property to the state's general fund or local government budgets, but because state ignores the presumption of innocence for property, an individual must prove that seized items aren't connected to a crime to get them back. Del. Joseph Vallario (D-Upper Marlboro) has introduced HB 360 that would put the onus on the state to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is connected to a crime.

This bill has already passed the House of Delegates and is awaiting action in the Senate. Republicans have led the charge for reform, often in bipartisan fashion, in other states, but GOP lawmakers in Maryland are still stuck in the "tough on crime" mindset that has led to abuses of civil asset forfeiture. They oppose HB 360 and may lobby Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, to veto the bill should it pass the Senate.

Again, these bills are steps in the right direction. But states should strive to go further to protect innocent people from civil asset forfeiture. Banning the practice entirely, requiring a criminal conviction before property is seized, would be ideal, as well as removing the profit motive. Though Florida and Maryland are falling short of comprehensive reform, the conversation and, perhaps, movement toward broader action has begun.

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, voters in all 50 states will cast their ballots for members of Congress and many will cast their ballots for senators. Some ballots will also include measures independent of the national elections. These are, for example, gubernatorial races, as well as ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee want to know why the Department of Justice (DOJ) has denied petitions by Americans whose money was seized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The seized money was subject to federal civil asset forfeiture hearings in which the individual from whom the money was taken had to prove that it wasn’t connected to any wrongdoing.

The issue of eminent domain is receiving renewed interest thanks to a new movie about Susette Kelo, whose property was taken by the City of New London, Connecticut to enhance the city’s tax base. The movie, Little Pink House, was recently released in select theaters across the country. Conservative columnist George Will wrote that the movie, which was directed by Courtney Balaker and co-produced by Ted Balaker, “will win the Oscar for best picture if Hollywood’s political preening contains even a scintilla of sincerity about speaking truth to power.”

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 1625, is packed full of legislative priorities for leadership and other items to get enough votes for passage. Most of what was negotiated and slipped into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, known as the “omnibus,” behind closed doors is bad for taxpayers or just bad policy. Unfortunately, amendments that were previously passed by the House to prevent the Department of Justice from ramping up its use of civil asset forfeiture were not included in the bill.

The House of Representatives will consider the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, H.R. 3354. The bill consolidates the eight remaining appropriations measures for FY 2018, including Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD). The House has already passed one consolidated appropriations bill, H.R. 3219, which authorized spending for the Department of Defense, the legislative branch, the military and veterans affairs, and energy and water.

The United States Government seized more from private citizens than burglars in 2014. Current federal laws regarding civil asset forfeiture are overstepping private property rights under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. Under the Fifth Amendment it is the obligation of government to provide evidence against private individuals whereas current civil asset forfeiture laws require private citizens to prove innocence. Civil Asset Forfeiture, where government confiscation is acceptable if it’s in the name of protecting the United States against drug lords by taking away private property.

Over the past several months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a step back on federal justice reform efforts, regressing to purportedly “tough on crime” stances. From advising increased penalties for nonviolent offenders to more recently promising an increase in the use of civil asset forfeiture by the federal government, Sessions has been doing everything in his power to give the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s full support to 80s-era policies from which many conservatives have abandoned in favor of evidenced-based practices that reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.

FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs Jason Pye released the following statement on the recent action from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to increase the power of law enforcement to confiscate property of people who are innocent until proven guilty:

Civil asset forfeiture, a tool used by law enforcement to seize property from individuals because they have merely been accused of a crime, has gotten a lot more scrutiny in recent days due to its lack of oversight and abuse. What many may not know though is that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also has the ability to seize property from businesses it is investigating. Fortunately, to address the abuses by the organization, Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) have introduced a bill to defend business owners from IRS forfeiture overreach.